A complete1 Mendel for sale? That’s incredible!
There has been a truly amazing progression2 in RepRap parts lately. While I’m not crazy about eBay as a way of selling3 , it’s a very democratic4 way of disseminating RepRap parts. The first few parts and sets of parts were all printed, then molded, now MOLDS are for sale?!
Yes, the Platonic ideal of RepRap is that a machine makes the components of the next machine. But, is it not also part of the RepRap ideal that these machines be disseminated as far and as widely as possible? It’s really great you can use a RepRap to build another – but that doesn’t mean it’s the best/most economical way.
These RepRap mold are advertised to be good for roughly 50 pourings. It is advertised to create 9 vertexes at once, but they all appear to be 1/2 vertexes. The posting also suggests it takes 12 vertexes for a full RepRap. So:
- 12 vertexes per RepRap / 0.5 vertexes halves = 24 vertex halves required
- 24 vertex halves required /9 vertex halves per sheet = 2.67 sheet uses per RepRap
- 50 uses per sheet / 2.67 uses per sheet = 18.75 sets of RepRap vertexes
Admittedly, this is only a set of molds for the frame vertexes, not the entire set of parts. However, it’s really only a matter of time before a set is up for grabs.
This makes me wonder – is there a different market value to printed parts rather than molded parts?
I don’t think there is much chance of this kind of molding really taking off. When you can pour easily full fledged Mendel parts why would you pour incomplete copies?
As for market value molded parts are stronger and more durable. Less variation and defects, so ultimately printed parts will become less valuable, but poured parts will be so much cheaper that the net effect will be that the entire machine will become commoditized. It’s the nature of things, so those that got their printed sets out early will make lots of money and those that take too long to market, will have nothing to show for their efforts. When I look at my printed parts and compare them to my molded parts, I’d much rather use the molded ones. 100% infill looks and feels so much stronger.
I know for team Makerbot it’s going to be horrifying, but you can expect a full assembled Mendel probably being available on a regular basis going forward. And it will likely be cheaper than a bare bones Makerbot kit. The window of the Makerbot monopoly is rapidly closing once and for all.
Just as I don’t believe in shortages of open source hardware, I don’t believe in monopolies on open source products.
Also, I don’t see the demand for MakerBots dropping depending on availability of RepRaps – they serve different purposes.
In answer to your question, I suspect lots of the parts are much more difficult to mold than the vertex.
Mandrake, you are incorect. Resin parts are more prone to breakage, less flexible, less mechanically acurate (Makerbot .1mm acurate, cast is typically .3-1mm acurate).
Lasercut, CNC, RP are the gold standard.
CNC- Most expensive, strongest, most limited.
Lasercut- Expensive if you don’t own the machine, brittle, less limited
RP – Professional is more expensive than CNC, RepRap is cheaper than Lasercut. More durable than Laseercut, least limited.
Cast – Non metal molds wear quickly, metal molds are 80+ per part. Resit is more brittle than lasercut, most limited.
That’s a Makerbot mythology Spacexula. I know you’ve been the champion of there being no choice but to sell your soul for printed pieces preferably from a Makerbot on the forums, but that is just not a valid reality. Your attacks on all new ideas and any innovation outside of Makerbot is legendary to be honest. You’ve probably single-handedly done more damage to the Reprap movement than Bre and everyone else on the Makerbot team combined. To say your credibility is suspect, is probably the understatement of the century.
Also Makerbots are only accurate to .5 mm if you are lucky, generally most users aren’t lucky to get with .8 mm of accuracy. The system is inherently flawed and everyone knows it. Not to mention for the purposes of building a Mendel you only need roughly 1 mm of accuracy to begin with, except on a tiny handful of sensitive pieces. But let’s not let reality get in the way of the Makerbot Mythology at all.
Ultimately it’s becoming increasingly obvious that some pieces were purposely designed to only be made on a 3D printer for whatever reason. There are better choices that could have been made to make the parts by all the available means to increase the spread of the project. But we have different goals, as I see it, the Reprap project is about to split into two camps. People like you and Bre on one side and people that are interested in the actual vision of the Reprap project on the other. I can’t wait for that to happen. Your vitriol provides no value to the project or it’s future. That being said, keep up the good work, your almost there.
*sigh* Hoo boy.
(1) Legendary?
(2) If Adrian Bowyer has no problem with MakerBot, neither do I and neither should you.
(3) MakerBots ARE accurate to 0.1 or so. You’re confusing aperture with accuracy. That’s like saying a car cannot stop in less distance than the length of the vehicle, irrespective of speed.
(4) Are you suggesting there is a RepRap conspiracy to use parts that can only be made on a 3D printer?
(5) What vitriol? The strongest thing Spacexula said was “incorrect.” A factual disagreement hardly counts as vitriolic.
Woah, ManDrake reminds me of that stunmonkey guy on Hack A Day that is always trolling reprap posts.
Pingback: A complete-ish RepRap sold | MakerBlock